Your Councillors

Erection of a storage barn with associated mobile poultry shed and
mobile home for the establishment of an organic egg enterprise and associated
works.

ADDRESS Cobnut Farm Pett Road Stockbury Kent ME9 7RJ

RECOMMENDATION Grant planning permission subject to planning
conditions and any further comment from Natural England

SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The development proposed is reasonably necessary for
the purposes of agriculture and the scheme would not have a significant
negative impact on the character of the AONB, and is acceptable after
consideration of other planning issues.

REASON
FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE

Stockbury
Parish Council has requested committee consideration with the comments
provided in Section 4 of this report.

WARD North Downs

PARISH/TOWN COUNCIL Stockbury

APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Wayte

AGENT George Webb Finn LLP

DECISION DUE DATE

08/12/16

PUBLICITY EXPIRY DATE

OFFICER SITE VISIT DATE

16/11/16

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (including appeals and
relevant history on adjoining sites):

None directly relevant.

MAIN
REPORT

1.0DESCRIPTION OF SITE

1.01 The land referred to in the
application as Cobnut Farm is located in attractive open countryside to the
north east of the hamlet of South Green. This is land within the Kent Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the North Downs Special Landscape
Area (SLA).

1.02 The land extends to around
4.6ha and involves grassland that slopes up away from the east side of Pett
Road. There are no buildings on the land at present and there is currently no
active agricultural use of this land. There is a wide access point in the
southern corner of the land with a rough track leading off up the slope, along
the southern boundary. The land is bounded by well-established hedging and
trees to all boundaries and the semi natural ancient woodland of Gore Wood is
located immediately to the north west of the site. There are no protected trees
in the vicinity of the site.

1.03 This is a relatively isolated
location on the North Downs and the site has no near residential neighbours:
the houses at South Green are approx. 260m away ‘as the crow flies’ to the
south east and the nearest property is Magpie Hall Farm approx. 150m from the
north east boundary of the holding. Pett Road is a narrow country lane, in
common with the entire highway network in this broad location.

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.01 This application seeks the
erection of a storage barn, a mobile poultry shed and the stationing of a residential
mobile home in order to establish an organic egg producing enterprise. It is
the buildings/mobile home that require planning permission; not the use of land
for agriculture.

2.02 Mr
and Mrs Wayte intend to develop this 4.6ha holding as a 2000 bird free-range
organic poultry unit, producing eggs mainly for sale to Stonegate packers
(suppliers to Waitrose). The applicants have submitted a comprehensive business
plan, with associated budgets. The development would include a mobile poultry shed
(approx. 52.5m x 9m), a feed silo, a general purpose storage barn (approx.
18m x 10m) and a mobile home (initially sought on a temporary basis) to be
occupied by the applicants as agricultural workers.

4.01 Stockbury Parish Council “has
considered the above application and wish to raise strong
objections to the proposals for the following reasons. The application has been
submitted as Cobnut Farm, Pett Road, Stockbury. Cobnut Farm does not exist at
this site as this land has never operated as a Farm, it is our understanding
that this area of land has recently been purchased and we feel that
submitting the application as an existing farm is misleading.

4.02 The
land is designated agricultural land and falls within an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. The Parish Council objects to the proposal to place a mobile
home on this site as it believes that this will lead to an application for a
permanent dwelling at some point in the future. This will set a precedent for
other land within the parish.

4.03 We
are concerned regarding the operating of a business in an area where access
to the land would be difficult. The lanes in this area are narrow and
already serve existing businesses with difficulty. We understand that an
additional access gate which has recently been installed from the field making an
unauthorised additional access onto Pett Road.

4.04 There
is already a chicken farm operating in the area and the environmental impact on
residents is felt in the summer months with excessive flies. The Parish Council
feels that a second chicken farm in close proximity would be detrimental to the
environment and the well-being of the residents in the area.

4.05 For
the reasons stated above Stockbury Parish Council objects to this application
and would request that if the views of the Planning Officer differ from the
Parish Councils that it is submitted to the Planning Committee for their
consideration.”

4.02 Four letters of objection have been
received from local residents and the following (summarised) points
are raised:

a) The development
would harm the character of the AONB.

b) The
local road network is unsuitable to serve the development and the access point
is steep and unsuitable. It is likely that South Green Lane would be used, not Pett
Lane, and that is equally unsuitable.

c) The
development would lead to an increased infestation of flies.

d) This scheme could
lead to a proliferation of housing.

e) Utilities along
the access roads would be damaged.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.01 Natural England points out that the
application site is within 4 km of the following European designated site
(also commonly referred to as Natura 2000 sites) and therefore has the
potential to affect the interest features of this site.

·Queendown Warren
Special Area of Conservation (SAC)

The
application site is also within 4 km of the following sites which are also notified
at a national level as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs):

·Queendown Warren

·Purple Hill

·Hollingbourne Downs

Against
this background, an assessment needs to be made as to the impact of the development
on air quality to ensure that the sensitive sites mentioned do not suffer unacceptable
impact from aerial pollutants.

In
response to the above the applicants have submitted an air quality assessment.
The views of Natural England are awaited on the submitted air quality
assessment.

5.02 The
KCC Biodiversity Officer has examined the application and concludes that there is
no need for an ecological scoping survey to be carried out on this managed grassland
field. The area of greatest interest is the mature boundary and the area of
woodland to the north west and these areas should be protected from damage from
hens. All hedgerows should be protected during the implementation of the development.
Lighting should be controlled with particular regard to the potential presence
of bats.

5.03 The Environment Agency has no
objection, but points out the responsibilities of developers with regard to the
prevention of pollution from the septic tank, surface water drainage, etc.

5.04 KCC Highways and
Transportation has no objection subject to conditions on the surfacing and
gradient of the access track, the positioning of gates, the safeguarding of
parking and turning space and control over the construction phase.

5.05 Southern Water has no
objection.

5.06
The Upper Medway Drainage Board has no objection.

5.07 The Forestry Commission
points out the presence of the nearby ancient woodland and refers to standing
advice.

5.08 The Kent Downs AONB Unit
objects to the development. No functional and financial justification
has been put forward for the proposed residential use. In addition to that, the
built development (including the access track) on rising ground away from the highway
would be harmful to the character of the AONB. [Officer comment: a functional
and financial justification has been advanced and this is discussed below in
the appraisal section of this report.].

5.09 MIDKENT Environmental Health
Shared Service has no objection subject to conditions as regards details of
plant and the storage of manure.

5.10 The MBC Landscape Officer
expresses no objection but points out the need for conditions to protect
trees and hedgerows from damage from hens.

5.11 Rural Planning Ltd. confirms
a reasonable need for the development. [Officer comment: Further discussion
below in relation to ‘Need’.]

6.0 APPRAISAL

Principle
of Development and the issue of ‘Need’

6.01 Development in the countryside
is restricted under the terms of the Development Plan and the Central
Government Guidance set out in The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The high quality of the AONB/SLA landscape is to be protected from visually
harmful development.

6.02 As an exception to the general
theme of restraint, Policy and Guidance allow for the construction of
buildings, access roads, etc. and the creation of rural worker dwellings where
there is an essential need for such accommodation. The NPPF states in para. 55:

“To promote sustainable development in rural areas,
housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of
rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements,
development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local
planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless
there are special circumstances such as (amongst other things) the essential
need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in
the countryside.

6.03 Similarly adopted Local Plan
Policies ENV28 and ENV43 allow for the creation of farm buildings and dwellings
as an exception to an otherwise restrictive regime. Emerging Policies provide
similar guidance.

6.04 Having examined the supporting
statements, the view of Rural Planning Ltd. is that:

“The applicants have submitted a
fairly comprehensive and carefully considered business plan, with associated
budgets. There appears to be clear evidence of their intention to develop
the business, supported, as I understand it, by private funding rather
than borrowings. The applicants have potentially secured a main production outlet,
as indicated above, and hope to supplement that income by direct local retailing
of a small proportion of “seconds” quality eggs. The size and design of the mobile
poultry shed, silo and barn appear appropriate to the needs of a unit such as this.”

6.05 The policy background also allows
for the principle of rural worker accommodation but clearly, to avoid the
proliferation of such dwellings, they should only be allowed where there is an
essential need. There is no Development Plan Policy directly related to such
dwellings. The old PPS7 Annex A had detailed guidance on how to assess need but
PPS7 has now been superseded by the NPPF. Nevertheless, in my view (and that of
Rural Planning), the tests in Annex A remain the most appropriate means of
assessing need and I consider it appropriate to utilise it in this case.

6.06 Annex A sets a functional test
and a financial test. The applicant has requested that sensitive financial
information be kept confidential. Rural Planning Ltd. concludes that there is
an essential need for a worker to live on site to provide care and security to the
hens. On the ‘financial test’, from the information available, I agree with
Rural Planning Ltd. that the business is potentially viable. I consider the
scale of accommodation to be appropriate to the needs of the holding. Rural
Planning Ltd. states:

“I also consider that an on-site
residential presence is necessary for the proper functional care and
welfare of the hens, as set out in the Business Plan.

6.07 There are many examples where
planning permission has been granted for on-site accommodation on comparable
units, not least locally at Cherry Tree Farm. A further example is off Pett
Road, Stockbury, where a similar scale business was successfully established in
recent years supplying Stonegates.

6.08 The main remaining issue, in
my view, is whether there is clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has
been planned on a sound financial basis. In this regard, the submitted budgets
(latterly revised to include depreciation and for more realistic yields) appear
to be reasonably soundly based, albeit it would be necessary to annualise the
assumed “per flock” income figures and costs, because a typical crop cycle
would be over some 60 weeks, rather than 52, thereby proportionately reducing the
annual net profit figure.

6.09 Furthermore,
the Business Plan suggests that part-time outside labour would be employed in
addition to the work to be provided by Mr and Mrs Wayte. I am not convinced
that a free range unit of this size and type would be able to afford (or in act
require in terms of typical labour input) the employment of such labour, and
still leave the applicants with a sufficient return to their own labour and
capital input.

6.10 That is a
particular matter that could be reviewed, however, if planning permission is
granted and once production is underway. Otherwise, on balance I consider there
should be sufficient potential under the applicants’ plans (which also
includes, outside the budgets prepared to date, the introduction of sheep for
organic lamb production on nearby rented land) to meet the usual financial test
for such proposals.

6.11 I conclude
the general principle of this scheme is acceptable but clearly the detailed
impact must also be deemed appropriate. Such organic egg production farms are clearly
a much more acceptable alternative to the intensive units of the past and, in
my view, any harm must be balanced against the benefits of providing eggs and poultry
products to the public in a way that meets the latest animal welfare and environmental
standards.

Visual
Impact and Landscaping

6.12 The impact of the development
on the character of the AONB is clearly a key issue. The buildings and the
mobile home would be sited up the slope on a flatter area of land away from the
steeper slopes that characterise the area close to the road. This location and
the land form would, in my view, reduce their prominence. These are relatively
low level structures (for example, the barn is only approx. 4.6m high) and would
benefit to a certain extent by the mature boundary trees and hedging that is already
established around this large field, not least the banking and associated roadside
hedging along the lane. In my view their impact on the open character of the area
would not be significant. I do have some concerns as to the prominence of the proposed
access road as it ascends the slope way from the highway but it seems to me
that such an arrangement is not unusual on farmland. I am satisfied that, overall,
the development would conserve landscape character.

6.13 The application states that
new planting would be put in place to reinforce existing boundaries and to
provide some softening of the impact of the access track as it climbs
the steeper part of the site. Conditions should be imposed to ensure that the boundaries
of the site are reinforced and enhanced. Subject to these I consider the scheme
acceptable in terms of its visual impact.

Residential
Amenity

6.14 In my view the site is
sufficiently divorced from the nearest residential properties to ensure that
there would be no significant loss of amenity from noise, smells, dust, flies,
etc. I recognise that there is a similar egg production facility at Cherry Tree
farm to the north of the application site but I am not convinced that the
combined impact would be such as to warrant withholding permission. The
Environmental Health Officer has no objection subject to conditions: I agree
that a condition should be imposed to control how manure is stored and disposed
of but, given the nature of the development and the relative isolation of the site;
I see no need for conditions on noise from any plant and machinery.

Highways

6.15 It is estimated the enterprise
would generate approx. 123 lorry movements per year equating to one lorry every
3 days for collection and one lorry every 17.5 days for delivery. I therefore
agree with the Highways Officer that the anticipated volume of traffic generated
by this proposal is not excessive. Livestock farms need open land to function
and it is often the case that they are necessarily located in relatively remote
areas away from centres of population: on that basis it is inevitable that such
enterprises will be served by narrow country lanes as is the case here. Given
the likely low level of traffic both the local highway network and the site
access details are considered adequate to serve the development.

Ecology

6.16 The KCC Biodiversity Officer
confirms the application site is not of significant ecological value. Conditions
can be imposed to protect the vegetated boundaries of the site during
construction and from any adverse impacts from foraging animals. New
landscaping is likely to provide enhanced habitat and the applicant expresses
a willingness to enhance ecological value through the introducing a
bumblebee-friendly management regime, including field corner management and
wild flower margins; and the installation of bat and bird boxes.

6.17 Natural England expresses
concern over the potential adverse impacts of aerial pollutants on nearby
protected sites. As such it requested an air quality assessment which has been
received. Natural England has been reconsulted and its views will be reported
to Members as an update.

Environmental Impact Assessment Screening

6.18 The site lies within the AONB
a ‘sensitive area’ for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Regulations. I have assessed
whether the development requires an environmental impact assessment: My
conclusions on the various planning impacts of the scheme lead to the view the
proposal would not have sufficiently significant effects on the AONB requiring
the submission of an EIA.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.01 The development would not cause
significant harm to the character, amenity and functioning of the Kent Downs Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

7.02 Active and beneficial use of
agricultural land is part of the character of the Kent countryside and the
limited environmental impact should be balanced alongside the benefits of modern
egg production that meets current animal welfare standards. I recommend that
permission be granted.

RECOMMENDATION
– Grant planning permission
subject to the following planning conditions and any further comment from
Natural England

(1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before
the expiration of three years from the date of this permission;

Reason: In
accordance with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004.

(2) The
occupation of the mobile home shall be limited to a person solely or mainly
working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture or in forestry, or a
widow or widower of such a person, and to any resident dependants;

Reason: The site is in an area where new residential
development is not normally permitted unless essentially required for the
proper functioning of the enterprise concerned.

(3) The residential use of the
mobile home shall cease and the mobile home shall be removed from the site on
or before 31December 2019;

Reason: The long term viability of the business has
not yet been sufficiently demonstrated and it would not be appropriate to allow
a permanent dwelling until such time as that long term viability is
established.

(4) Prior to any of the
buildings hereby approved proceeding past ground works, written details and
samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external
surfaces of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority and the development shall be constructed using the
approved materials;

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the
development.

(5) Prior to any of the
buildings hereby approved proceeding past ground works a scheme of landscaping, using indigenous species
which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the
land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their
protection in the course of development and a programme for the approved
scheme's implementation and long term management shall be submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed using
the principles established in the Council's adopted Landscape Character
Assessment and Landscape Guidelines and shall include full details of proposed
boundary treatments so as to prevent animals damaging the northern hedgerow and
the woodland beyond;

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and
ecology.

(6) All planting, seeding or
turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out
in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the
building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and
any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of
the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall
be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and
species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any
variation;

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and
ecology.

(7) Prior to any of the buildings hereby approved
proceeding past ground works full details
of the proposed lighting and the methods to prevent light spillage shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details;

Reason: In the interests of ecology and to prevent light pollution within the
Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

(8) The changes to the access road shall be completed
before the first use of the farm buildings hereby permitted;

Reason: In
the interests of highway safety.

(9) Before the first use of the
farm buildings hereby permitted, full details of the storage and disposal of manure
and waste materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and the use shall operate in accordance with the approved
details;

Reason: In order to prevent residential amenity problems
and avoid problems associated with potential environmental pollution.

(10) Prior to any of the buildings
hereby approved proceeding past ground works,
a scheme of ecology enhancement works, including a timetable for the scheme’s
implementation and long term management, shall be submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a bumblebee-friendly management regime for the site,
including field corner management and wild flower margins; and the installation
of bat and bird boxes.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and
ecology.

(11) The development hereby
permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: